- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7916 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CAR STREET MANGALORE - 575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI P.SUNIL BHANDARI S/O P.PADMANABHA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. SRI P.GANESH BHANDARI S/O KAMALAKSHA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PARTNER OF THE FIRM SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY R/AT SANGAM, GANDHINAGAR 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR MANGALORE - 575 003. 3. SRI P.SURAJ BHANDARI S/O R.PADMANABHA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PARTNER OF THE FIRM SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY R/AT PADMANABH URUVA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 MARIGUDI ROAD CROSS ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE - 575 006. 4. SRI P.SUNIL BHANDARI S/O P.PADMANABHA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PARTNER OF THE FIRM SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY R/AT NIKUNJ URUVA MARIGUDI ROAD CROSS ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE - 575 006. 5. SRI P.RAMACHANDRA BHANDARY S/O MOHANDAS BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PARTNER OF THE FIRM SCHOOL BOOK COMPANY R/AT LAKSHMINARASIMHA GANDHINAGAR, MANGALORE - 575 006. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK MISSION STREET BRANCH MANGALORE - 575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO DE-FREEZE THE ACCOUNT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FIRM VIDE CURRENT ACCOUNT NO. 55, 94, 882, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 49 AND HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT BANK IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “(a) Issue a Writ or Mandamus directing the Respondent bank to de-freeze the account of the 1st Petitioner firm vide Current Account No. 55,94,882.49 and hold that the action of the Respondent bank is illegal, arbitrary and against law; (b) Direct the Respondent bank to pay damages of Rs. 25 lakhs to the Petitioner firm for their illegal and unethical acts. (c) Grant such other and further reliefs based on the nature and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above case. (d) Grant cost of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 3. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the partners of petitioner No.1 - partnership firm – School Book Company. These petitioners were before a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.3423/2022, which comes to be disposed on 10.02.2025. The order reads as follows: “The first petitioner which is a partnership firm doing business in the name and style of ‘School Book Company’, and has an existence of more than a century, is aggrieved by the defreezing of its account at the hands of the respondent-Bank. 2. It is contended that the petitioner-firm has assets worth more than Rs.15.5 crores mortgaged to the respondent-Bank. The petitioner-firm has discharged its liability to the tune of Rs.2.98 crores and there was no reason for the respondent-Bank to have taken the drastic step of freezing the accounts. 3. On the previous occasion, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank to seek instructions regarding the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners. Today, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits on instructions that the petitioner-firm has discharged its loan liability. It is also submitted that the statutory dues payable by the petitioner-partnership firm is being paid through the Current Account. Learned Counsel submits that the action was taken pursuant to a public notice appearing in the newspaper on 21.01.2021 that all the partners have decided to dissolve the partnership firm. 4. Learned Counsel submits that only one of the partners has retired and he appears to have given such a public notice. However, the partnership firm has been continued at the hands of the other partners and they have been doing business and they are also transacting business in other banks. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 5. Having regard to the grievances raised by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the present partners who are running the business, come before the respondent-Bank and present their credentials seeking to continue the partnership firm, the respondentBank shall consider the same and defreeze the account and permit them to continue their business with the respondent-Bank. The action could not have been taken on a piece of information that was published in the newspaper. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” The afore-quoted order was concerning Union Bank of India. An identical issue is now cropped up with the respondent - Canara Bank. Petitioner No.1 – firm had an account in Canara Bank as well with 10 partners; 4 of the partners is said to have expired and 5 of them are before this Court. The bank has frozen the account of the firm on the score that there is no compliance of Know Your Customer norms. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - bank submits that if the petitioners would produce before the bank all the records of the partners, who are alive or expired, and comply with the Know Your Customer norms, in accordance with law, the bank would permit operation of the account as it was being operated prior to the freezement of the account. The submission is placed on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17074 WP No. 7916 of 2025 5. In the light of the aforesaid submission, two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to furnish all the necessary details to the respondent – bank and comply with Know Your Customer norms, and the bank shall within 48 hours thereafter, defreeze the account of the petitioners. 6. In the event, the petitioners would furnish all the required details earlier to two weeks as granted hereinabove, the bank shall defreeze the account within 48 hours, therefrom. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SS